Skip to comments.Vatican condemns IVF, the Pill (Why is this so surprising alert!)
Posted on 12/12/2008 6:09:21 AM PST by NYer
THE Vatican today said life was sacred at every stage of its existence and condemned artificial fertilisation, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning and drugs which block pregnancy from taking hold.
A long-awaited document on bioethics by the Vatican's doctrinal body also said the so-called "morning after pill" and the drug RU-486, which blocks the action of hormones needed to keep a fertilised egg implanted in the uterus, fall "within the sin of abortion" and are gravely immoral.
"Dignitas Personae" (dignity of a person), an Instruction of Certain Bioethical Questions," is an attempt to bring the Church up to date with recent advances in science and medicine.
It said human life deserved respect "from the very first stages of its existence (and) can never be reduced merely to a group of cells."
"The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person," the docment by the Congregations of the Doctrine of the Faith said.
It said most forms of artifical fertilisation "are to be excluded" because "they substitute for the conjugal act ... which alone is truly worthy of responsible procreation".
It condemned in-vitro fertilisation, saying the techniques "proceed as if the human embryo were simply a mass of cells to be used, selected and discarded."
The highly technical document said only adult stem cell research was moral because embryonic stem cell research involved the destruction of embryos.
In the document, the Vatican also defended its right to intervene on such matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
Since the transition is more-or-less random and unpredictable, it can be assumed an act of God that killed it...
To address your "act of God(that you don't believe in)" bit, if the embryos are human lives, don't we have the same duty to protect them as we would a newborn? If I toss a baby out in the snow, can I claim that the near certain eventual death was caused by an act of God rather then my heaving him out into the snow?
From your own post earlier, prior to that conference that defined what 'instinct' must mean, there was a list of 4000 human instincts. Suddenly, in a short span, they got reduced to none. Maybe instinct isn't the right word, but the meaning is something close. Like how babies, when immersed water, "instinctually" manage to cease breathing the water in. Haven't heard of that? Here, have a look:
You are so pitiful; you seek to confront, rather than make solid arguments. Sad. And immature.
Petronski, we’ve been arguing with an effeminate 8 year old this whole time!
"...and worst of all, lost to that "8-year old"
>>Maybe instinct isn’t the right word, but the meaning is something close. <<
“I know what I mean and I am right.”
>>Like how babies, when immersed water, “instinctually” manage to cease breathing the water in.<<
That’s call “reflex”, silly!
>>”...and worst of all, lost to that “8-year old” <<
And with the deluded ego of an 8 year old too!
Bookmark for pinging unless it got pinged already and I didn’t see it!
Okay, I take it that you understand the context of my usage of the word.
I understand your error in the usage of the word and therefore the debate is flawed.
But thanks for playing!
Yup, and that is why Freud is considered only ONE reference. Now you’re in my field. Worked Psych for a while.
Do you know how many Psychs disagree with Freud?
And if the “instinct” to reproduce was the number one, end all be all “instinct” why is it that Europe can’t even produce enough offspring to replace their population?
You must be ignorant of Bushisms, I take it?
All you portray here, quite oblivious to your own childish self, is your desperation to run away from the discussion, seeing almost every point you attempt to make, get decimated by counterarguments. Your earlier tactic of attacking the poster rather than the argument, was telling in and of itself of your intent, and inherent lack of confidence, to argue to the point. All of these are available on this thread for all to see!
Please continue here; your senseless babble and focused frustration makes for light entertainment!
"100 Authors Against Einstein"
I'm off from here for a while. You may have the last word. This thread is done!
>>You must be ignorant of Bushisms, I take it?<<
I’m not ignorant of trolls who come in stating they are lurkers for a long time, with a recent sign up date, who eventually use words that are hints to their true way of thinking.
Oh my goodness, you truly are a child!
There are delusional idiots who try to put down Bush by focusing on his many mispronunciations and invented words. You are trying hard to be one among that set.
Plus, your desperation is hilarious!
Let me guess... you're Catholic.
I thought you were leaving the thread.
Since you’re still here, answer this question.
If the ‘Instinct’ to reproduce is so strong, why can’t Europe come up with replacement rates for their population?
>>The facade can only be maintained for so long.<<
You called it, my FRiend!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.